Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist.
Decision Date | 04 October 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 14-16-00474-CV,14-16-00474-CV |
Citation | 561 S.W.3d 263 |
Parties | TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. DICKINSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
SUBSTITUTE OPINION
The parties' motions for rehearing are denied.1 We withdraw our May 31, 2018 majority opinion and substitute the following in its stead. Our judgment remains unchanged.
Today we consider whether Dickinson Independent School District ("DISD") is entitled to judgment for breach of contract damages against Texas Windstorm Insurance Association ("TWIA") based on an appraisal award.
DISD sued TWIA in connection with TWIA's handling of DISD's Hurricane Ike claims. DISD alleged breach of contract and related claims. During the proceedings, TWIA invoked the insurance policy's appraisal provisions, and the resulting appraisal award totaled $10.8 million in damages. DISD amended its petition to abandon all claims except breach of contract and, based on the appraisal award, filed traditional motions for partial summary judgment on the elements of causation and damages. TWIA opposed the motions because, among other things, DISD had not conclusively proven that the alleged damages reflected in the appraisal award, or any portion of them, were caused by covered perils. The trial court granted both motions in DISD's favor. The case proceeded to trial and the sole question put to the jury was whether TWIA breached the policy by failing to pay the appraisal award, which the jury answered affirmatively. The trial court signed a final judgment against TWIA for $9,602,542.82.
TWIA challenges the trial court's judgment in the following issues:
For the reasons explained below, we sustain TWIA's first issue in part and hold that the trial court erred in granting DISD's motions for partial summary judgment on causation and damages because DISD's evidence, including the appraisal award, did not conclusively prove whether and how much alleged loss was caused by a covered peril and otherwise subject to coverage under the policy terms and conditions. Having sustained this portion of TWIA's first issue, we further conclude that remand for further proceedings, as opposed to rendition of judgment, is the appropriate remedy under the present circumstances. Given our resolution of TWIA's first issue, reaching TWIA's remaining issues is not necessary to final disposition of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
TWIA issued a windstorm and hail commercial policy of insurance to DISD, the named insured. The relevant policy period was from September 1, 2008 to September 1, 2009. As to each covered property, the policy provided for two potential forms of coverage depending on whether a limit of liability for a particular form of coverage was shown in the declarations. The two forms of coverage were identified in the policy as "COVERAGE A (Building)" or "COVERAGE B (Business Personal Property)." The policy provided in relevant part2 as follows:
Hurricane Ike struck Galveston County, Texas on September 13, 2008, during the effective dates of the TWIA policy. Three days later, DISD notified TWIA of windstorm damage to several of its buildings. TWIA acknowledged DISD's claim and hired an adjuster to manage the claim. TWIA's adjuster and DISD personnel inspected DISD's campuses and documented the damage found. TWIA's adjuster verified damages exceeding policy deductibles on numerous insured structures and sent the documentation to DISD personnel for review. In December 2009, TWIA paid DISD $220,232.85 for these damages. DISD subsequently signed a proof of loss, reflecting the cash value of the claim, as well as depreciation that TWIA would pay upon completion of repairs. TWIA paid DISD recoverable depreciation of $8,667.80 in March 2010.
In September 2011, DISD contacted TWIA concerning a roof on one of DISD's buildings. DISD had replaced the roof and sought reimbursement of $1,550,645.75 as additional damages caused by Hurricane Ike. TWIA paid $999,577.19 for this supplemental claim in October 2011 (DISD's "Roof Claim"), though apparently no documentation was provided establishing a wind-created opening on the roof. This amount did not include general contractor overhead and profit amounts. In March 2012, DISD provided a new sworn proof of loss.
The following September, DISD filed the instant lawsuit against TWIA. DISD claimed that TWIA breached its contract, violated the Texas Insurance Code, breached its duties of good faith and fair dealing, and committed fraud. Prior to filing suit, DISD did not notify TWIA of any additional losses it contended were covered under the policy. TWIA asserted a general denial and several affirmative defenses.
DISD demanded that TWIA pay $311,623.04 for overhead and profit related to DISD's Roof Claim, $292,942.12 in statutory interest, and $225,000 for attorney's and expert fees, for a total of $829,566.16.3 In response, TWIA invoked the policy's appraisal clause.
DISD designated Mark Domangue as its appraiser, and TWIA selected Jonathan Held. The trial court appointed former judge Donnie Ray Burgess as umpire over TWIA's objection. Initial appraisal inspections occurred between October 1 and October 9, 2013. By that time, DISD already had repaired, replaced, or sold some of the damaged property for which it claimed further compensation was due under the policy. Domangue provided Held his initial damages estimates in early June 2014. Held reciprocated two months later and also sent Domangue a comparison detailing the differences in their initial estimates.
Held and Domangue met to review estimates. They agreed to some items and changes, but were unable to agree on an overall damages estimate. They were to exchange revised estimates for final review before meeting with Burgess. Domangue did not provide Held with his revised appraisal, but instead informed Held that the revisions were not "significant" and would not change his overall summary.
Burgess inspected DISD's buildings in March 2015. Neither Held nor Domangue were present when Burgess inspected the buildings. Burgess, Held, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. James
...at 222; see Travelers Indem. Co. v. McKillip, 469 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex. 1971); Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist., 561 S.W.3d 263, 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("Although a plaintiff is not required to establish the amount of his damages with ......
-
Wilson v. Fleming
...and a motion for traditional summary judgment must stand or fall on its own merit. See Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist. , 561 S.W.3d 263, 270–71, 2018 WL 4781526, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet. h.).The Fleming Firm therefore failed to conclusivel......
-
Pleasant Grove Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fieldturf USA, Inc.
...Paso 2008, no pet.) ; Morgan v. Anthony , 27 S.W.3d 928, 929 (Tex. 2000).10 See Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist. , 561 S.W.3d 263, 280–81 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) ; Associated Air Ctr. v. Tary Network Ltd. , No. 05-13-00685-CV, 2015 WL 970664, at *7 (Tex......
-
Ramirez v. Sanchez
...rulings and begin anew."). On remand, both parties will have a full and fair opportunity to present all of their claims and defenses. See id. This result best comports with interest of justice. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.3(b); Tex. Windstorm, 561 S.W.3d at 281. We sustain Ramirez's eighth issue......